Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophical questions

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 1:46:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Notice the chair you are sitting in. Now look at this chair http://www.furnituredesignideas.net... They are very different objects, yet somehow they are both chairs. What makes them chairs? "

"You sit in them" You sit on the floor, is that a chair?

"They have backs you lean on" a couch has a back you lean on.

It is the mental classification of similar objects that gives us categories that many different objects fit into. Our mind sorts through objects and places similar ones in categories and gives them one name (chair) in this example.

This implies that reality is constructed by the mind. Without categorization there is just "stuff". With categorization there is "A room with a chair and a computer". The construction of reality is what defines consciousness.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 4:37:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 1:46:39 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Notice the chair you are sitting in. Now look at this chair http://www.furnituredesignideas.net... They are very different objects, yet somehow they are both chairs. What makes them chairs? "

"You sit in them" You sit on the floor, is that a chair?

"They have backs you lean on" a couch has a back you lean on.

It is the mental classification of similar objects that gives us categories that many different objects fit into. Our mind sorts through objects and places similar ones in categories and gives them one name (chair) in this example.

This implies that reality is constructed by the mind. Without categorization there is just "stuff". With categorization there is "A room with a chair and a computer". The construction of reality is what defines consciousness.

Classification doesn't imply the primacy of consciousness. You're not actually saying what you think you're saying: it's true that our mind is responsible for conceptualizing, categorizing, and organizing the world in which we live, but that isn't the same as saying that "reality is constructed by the mind" (emphasis mine). The only thing constructed by the mind is a massive system of concepts. But concepts aren't reality--they're our way of understanding reality, but they aren't identical.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would say that it is completely possible that all reality is constructed by the mind. But I think what science defines as the mind is lacking in truth. Also, if I create something with my mind.. Does it not exist? Surely if you take the materialist perspective that dreams are a creation of the mind... A creation that we can experience as a reality. Then you can grasp the concept of all reality being a similar state of creation in the mind of something that more advanced than the human counterpart that we experience. You could not know anything outside of your own consciousness, for the only thing that you can know is what you experience personally. Their are people in your real life "reality" that you interact with...are there not? How is this any different from the created reality that a materialist believes we call a "dream"? Because their is different physics involved?

Personal conclusion: A created reality is the most reasonable to rationalize existence. For we experience something similar on a small scale when we dream. The dreaming experience is how we can make sense of such a concept. True reality is in the mind of what some religions commonly refer to as God. It is rational and logical to conclude this in my opinion. For the reason I have stated and others.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 5:02:34 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I would say that it is completely possible that all reality is constructed by the mind. But I think what science defines as the mind is lacking in truth.

What definition would that be, and in which respects do you find it lackin?

Also, if I create something with my mind.. Does it not exist?

Trying to imagine a pile of gold, and it isn't materializing in front of me. There therefore seems to be a problem with your argument.

Surely if you take the materialist perspective that dreams are a creation of the mind... A creation that we can experience as a reality. Then you can grasp the concept of all reality being a similar state of creation in the mind of something that more advanced than the human counterpart that we experience.

Not really. It's the case that reality isn't necessarily exactly as we perceive it (given perceptual heterogeneity among humans), but this does not refute the primacy of existence--rather, it merely indicates that our experiences of the same thing differ.

You could not know anything outside of your own consciousness, for the only thing that you can know is what you experience personally. Their are people in your real life "reality" that you interact with...are there not? How is this any different from the created reality that a materialist believes we call a "dream"? Because their is different physics involved?

You're operating on false assumptions--for example, you're assuming dualism, inasmuch as you're assuming that "the mind" and "consciousness" are their own entities, when there is plenty of evidence which suggests that consciousness as we conceive of it is illusory, easily reducible to purely physical phenomena. In other words, mind is neither an entity nor a substance in its own right. It simply makes sense to observe the world on a macro level because the brain evolved to deal with the world on such terms.

Personal conclusion: A created reality is the most reasonable to rationalize existence. For we experience something similar on a small scale when we dream. The dreaming experience is how we can make sense of such a concept. True reality is in the mind of what some religions commonly refer to as God. It is rational and logical to conclude this in my opinion. For the reason I have stated and others.

Your argument isn't rational. You're arguing that the external world is most likely a dream because dreams exist; however, this is not only a non sequitur on its face, but leads to an infinite regress upon its acceptance, as a dream requires a dreamer, who could in turn be said to be dreaming based on your argument, ad infinitum. You could make the argument that the level above this "dream" is the ultimate reality, but you're not avoiding the regression; rather, you're drawing an arbitrary line to make your argument coherent.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:09:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 5:30:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

You're operating on false assumptions--for example, you're assuming dualism, inasmuch as you're assuming that "the mind" and "consciousness" are their own entities, when there is plenty of evidence which suggests that consciousness as we conceive of it is illusory, easily reducible to purely physical phenomena. In other words, mind is neither an entity nor a substance in its own right. It simply makes sense to observe the world on a macro level because the brain evolved to deal with the world on such terms.


...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:26:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:09:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 5:30:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

You're operating on false assumptions--for example, you're assuming dualism, inasmuch as you're assuming that "the mind" and "consciousness" are their own entities, when there is plenty of evidence which suggests that consciousness as we conceive of it is illusory, easily reducible to purely physical phenomena. In other words, mind is neither an entity nor a substance in its own right. It simply makes sense to observe the world on a macro level because the brain evolved to deal with the world on such terms.


...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

This.

Cody: Your assumptions are just as false as mine and for the same reasons. Our personal realities are different through our own creation. You imagine gold in front of you and you expect it to magically appear based on what I said? That's absurd and is not even close to a valid comprehension of the philosophical point I was making.Your mind seems to have trouble comprehending what I was saying in general, let alone specifically. This shows me that your intellectual capacity for certain philosophy is at a level in which you can't yet grasp the understanding of the philosophical point I was trying to make.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:09:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 5:30:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

You're operating on false assumptions--for example, you're assuming dualism, inasmuch as you're assuming that "the mind" and "consciousness" are their own entities, when there is plenty of evidence which suggests that consciousness as we conceive of it is illusory, easily reducible to purely physical phenomena. In other words, mind is neither an entity nor a substance in its own right. It simply makes sense to observe the world on a macro level because the brain evolved to deal with the world on such terms.


...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:26:45 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:09:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 5:30:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

You're operating on false assumptions--for example, you're assuming dualism, inasmuch as you're assuming that "the mind" and "consciousness" are their own entities, when there is plenty of evidence which suggests that consciousness as we conceive of it is illusory, easily reducible to purely physical phenomena. In other words, mind is neither an entity nor a substance in its own right. It simply makes sense to observe the world on a macro level because the brain evolved to deal with the world on such terms.


...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

This.

Cody: Your assumptions are just as false as mine and for the same reasons.

Which assumptions?

Our personal realities are different through our own creation.

"We" don't "create" anything.

You imagine gold in front of you and you expect it to magically appear based on what I said? That's absurd and is not even close to a valid comprehension of the philosophical point I was making. Your mind seems to have trouble comprehending what I was saying in general, let alone specifically. This shows me that your intellectual capacity for certain philosophy is at a level in which you can't yet grasp the understanding of the philosophical point I was trying to make.

Blah blah blah you can't understand me I'm smarter than you blah blah blah. That isn't an argument, nor is it an explanation of your previous argument to correct my alleged error. It's just a bunch of personal insults.

My interpretation of your argument was to be charitable in assuming you weren't stating the obvious, i.e. that our brain's methods of understanding organize reality in a way which makes sense to us.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:24:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

[SNIP]

This shows me that your intellectual capacity for certain philosophy is at a level in which you can't yet grasp the understanding of the philosophical point I was trying to make.

That isn't an argument, nor is it an explanation of your previous argument to correct my alleged error. It's just a bunch of personal insults.

It isn't an insult to you and it is perfectly correct, I think you just read it too quickly.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:43:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:39:09 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:24:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

[SNIP]

This shows me that your intellectual capacity for certain philosophy is at a level in which you can't yet grasp the understanding of the philosophical point I was trying to make.

That isn't an argument, nor is it an explanation of your previous argument to correct my alleged error. It's just a bunch of personal insults.

It isn't an insult to you and it is perfectly correct, I think you just read it too quickly.

Either you're supporting the contention that I'm stupid, or you're backing me up in the notion that his argument is stupid and that my understanding of philosophy isn't equipped to grapple with it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:44:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:43:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:39:09 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:24:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

[SNIP]

This shows me that your intellectual capacity for certain philosophy is at a level in which you can't yet grasp the understanding of the philosophical point I was trying to make.

That isn't an argument, nor is it an explanation of your previous argument to correct my alleged error. It's just a bunch of personal insults.

It isn't an insult to you and it is perfectly correct, I think you just read it too quickly.

Either you're supporting the contention that I'm stupid, or you're backing me up in the notion that his argument is stupid and that my understanding of philosophy isn't equipped to grapple with it.

I can't tell which.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:50:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Are we using the same definitions?

I think he is referring to non-reductive physicalism and concepts such as supervenience.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:52:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance dualism are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Fixed
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:50:01 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Are we using the same definitions?

I think he is referring to non-reductive physicalism and concepts such as supervenience.

Yessir.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:55:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
*tries to read this thread*
*head explodes*
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:00:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:52:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance dualism are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Fixed

Okay, that's what I thought you meant.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:05:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:44:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

I can't tell which.

If you wrote it as a meta-response to mock my reply then it is the funniest thing I have seen in some time. If it was serious then the answer was the latter. I am going to assume the former in any case because it is fairly brilliant if intended.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:18:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:05:10 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:44:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

I can't tell which.

If you wrote it as a meta-response to mock my reply then it is the funniest thing I have seen in some time. If it was serious then the answer was the latter. I am going to assume the former in any case because it is fairly brilliant if intended.

Yeah, sorry, I was serious. My intellectual capacity for certain things is at a level in which I can't yet grasp the understanding of the personal point you were trying to make.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.

Maybe Justin's right, and I've suddenly become an idiot.

Why can't those things be reduced?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:02:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.

Maybe Justin's right, and I've suddenly become an idiot.

Why can't those things be reduced?

I never said that you are an idiot. Just that it seems you don't currently possess the specific philosophical tools to understand the meaning of my previous point.

It seems to be that you think it goes something like this.... I imagine something, therefor according to what you are saying it should manifest into reality.

That's not how any form of what I was talking about is meant to be understood. I'm not talking about magic sorcery. This isn't Harry Potter.

You are an intelligent person. I can tell this much. But maybe you've lost some of your intellectual groove. This may be because the intellectual stimulation you once gained from this site, was lacking for a long time. That lack of stimulation forced you out of your intellectual groove.

It's just a theory though. I could be completely wrong. I only formed the theory due to 80 percent of the replies to my posts being either trolling or nonsense. That only leaves about 20 percent that gives me intellectual stimulation. (and I'm being generous with those numbers.)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:09:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 9:02:08 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.

Maybe Justin's right, and I've suddenly become an idiot.

Why can't those things be reduced?

I never said that you are an idiot. Just that it seems you don't currently possess the specific philosophical tools to understand the meaning of my previous point.

It seems to be that you think it goes something like this.... I imagine something, therefor according to what you are saying it should manifest into reality.

That was just me mocking you.

That's not how any form of what I was talking about is meant to be understood. I'm not talking about magic sorcery. This isn't Harry Potter.

You are an intelligent person. I can tell this much. But maybe you've lost some of your intellectual groove. This may be because the intellectual stimulation you once gained from this site, was lacking for a long time. That lack of stimulation forced you out of your intellectual groove.

Today in particular isn't one of my better days for a number of reasons.

It's just a theory though. I could be completely wrong. I only formed the theory due to 80 percent of the replies to my posts being either trolling or nonsense. That only leaves about 20 percent that gives me intellectual stimulation. (and I'm being generous with those numbers.)

This is all well and good, but it remains irrelevant to your argument. I don't know that you were planning on actually discussing the subject, but I'm good keeping this going.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:22:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Why can't those things be reduced?

That would be a wonderful debate to read between you and PCP.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 12:12:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.

Maybe Justin's right, and I've suddenly become an idiot.

Why can't those things be reduced?

Mutiple realizability

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I'd take my objections against reductivism much further than just mutiple realizability but that suffices for now.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 12:12:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 9:22:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Why can't those things be reduced?

That would be a wonderful debate to read between you and PCP.

I'm down if he is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 3:42:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 12:12:42 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 9:22:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Why can't those things be reduced?

That would be a wonderful debate to read between you and PCP.

I'm down if he is.

Maybe. What would the resolution be, exactly?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 3:46:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 12:12:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:25:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:59:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:48:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 7:20:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote
...no. How much philosophy of mind have you read? The vast majority of physicalists don't even believe that.

Are we using the same definitions?

I dunno. But the same features that are/were typically attrbuted to conciousness in substance are still the same features that the majority of physicalist philosophers think can't be reduced like phenomenal/qualitative and intentional states.

Which features?

The features at the end of my paragraph.

Maybe Justin's right, and I've suddenly become an idiot.

Why can't those things be reduced?

Mutiple realizability

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I'd take my objections against reductivism much further than just mutiple realizability but that suffices for now.

To be clear, what do you understand my argument as being?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 1:41:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 3:42:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 12:12:42 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/23/2011 9:22:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Why can't those things be reduced?

That would be a wonderful debate to read between you and PCP.

I'm down if he is.

Maybe. What would the resolution be, exactly?

"Phenomenal consciousness can be reduced down to physical states."

Or something like that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!